A Reason To Play

[Dr. Whammy]

Vyor,

Interesting concept but I have a few questions for you;

- Regarding "banning people from twinking if you don't want it done as a server admin.";
How many people in this thread do you think are StarMade PVP server admins? How many admins do you know who will actually ban someone for specifically targeting noobs? Furthermore, how would you prove that someone was specifically targeting noobs?

- Regarding "Non-PVP servers and "solo-faction" servers";
Compared to regular PVP servers, how common are these? How well do such things maintain an active player base?

- How does your tier-based system address supposed "low tier" factions who ally with each other, build small, high-spec ships then go on a noob hunting rampage or gang up on players who are otherwise "out of their league"? How do you deal with a bunch of solo factions who gang up on a lone solo faction on a solo faction server?

Most threads on this topic say essentially the same thing; that "we need something worth fighting for". Unfortunately, you can't solve for that variable since what's "worth fighting for" will vary widely from one person to another.

The issue isn't combat incentive or faction mechanics; it's player behavior. If war in StarMade was as simple as, "fight, occupy/retreat, dock, repair, lather, rinse, repeat", we wouldn't have threads like these. Unfortunately, people have to work/eat/sleep and AI for logistics and combat/defense are prototypical at best. As such, anything that isn't a faction homebase can be wiped out while you're busy doing IRL things. Normal people with a sense of sportsmanship wouldn't mess with an offline player's stuff or pester weaker players. But there are those among us who do not feel obligated to 'play fair'.

In all honesty, I think your plan should focus more on countering non-sportsman-like tendencies. If you can solve that, the rest will fall into place.

 

[Vyor]

- Regarding "banning people from twinking if you don't want it done as a server admin.";
How many people in this thread do you think are StarMade PVP server admins? How many admins do you know who will actually ban someone for specifically targeting noobs? Furthermore, how would you prove that someone was specifically targeting noobs?

Logs, logical inference.

- Regarding "Non-PVP servers and "solo-faction" servers";
Compared to regular PVP servers, how common are these? How well do such things maintain an active player base?

As there is no distinction right now the only non-PVP servers are building ones.

- How does your tier-based system address supposed "low tier" factions who ally with each other, build small, high-spec ships then go on a noob hunting rampage or gang up on players who are otherwise "out of their league"? How do you deal with a bunch of solo factions who gang up on a lone solo faction on a solo faction server?

That would be up to server policy.

The issue isn't combat incentive or faction mechanics; it's player behavior. If war in StarMade was as simple as, "fight, occupy/retreat, dock, repair, lather, rinse, repeat", we wouldn't have threads like these. Unfortunately, people have to work/eat/sleep and AI for logistics and combat/defense are prototypical at best. As such, anything that isn't a faction homebase can be wiped out while you're busy doing IRL things. Normal people with a sense of sportsmanship wouldn't mess with an offline player's stuff or pester weaker players. But there are those among us who do not feel obligated to 'play fair'.

In all honesty, I think your plan should focus more on countering non-sportsman-like tendencies. If you can solve that, the rest will fall into place.

An offline protection system, with a grace period of 2-3 minutes before it goes away when you log back in and that takes 2-3 minutes to kick in when you log out of the game would solve that offline problem.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Logs, logical inference.



As there is no distinction right now the only non-PVP servers are building ones.



That would be up to server policy.



An offline protection system, with a grace period of 2-3 minutes before it goes away when you log back in and that takes 2-3 minutes to kick in when you log out of the game would solve that offline problem.

Can you expand on your replies rather than cherry pick? You've ignored most of the "meat and potatoes" of what I'm asking you. This is a long standing issue that is not going to be solved by half-hearted ideas and apathy.

 

[Vyor]

Can you expand on your replies rather than cherry pick? You've ignored most of the "meat and potatoes" of what I'm asking you. This is a long standing issue that is not going to be solved by half-hearted ideas and apathy.

I attempted to answer the core concerns of each point, if I failed then I would like to request examples of what you mean.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I attempted to answer the core concerns of each point, if I failed then I would like to request examples of what you mean.

Recap.

- Regarding Admins; you're assuming that server admins will ban noob hunters and that said noob hunters won't weasel their way out of any accusations with excuses, loopholes, plausible deniability, etc. Logs may record player deaths but they do not record ship theft, destruction or vandalism. Logical inferences; no matter how sound can't always be proven. My point is, if someone wants to be malicious, this particular plan won't stop them and you can't count on admins to solve this.

- Regarding "non-PVP and solo factions"; you've offered these as an alternative to your plan when (as you've just admitted) no such options besides build servers exist. This is not only illogical but also somewhat offputting; almost as if to say that if players don't fit squarely into either "build" or "PVP", then no one cares about them. I've asked you to expand on your position since I doubt it was your intention to be offputting or to leave such a gaping hole in your idea.

- Regarding server policy; If you're going to say "let the server policy/admins take care of it." Why even bother to submit an idea in the first place? Either way, you won't actually have a real reason to fight. Likewise, neither model will prevent the kind of behavior I mentioned. Do you have any ideas to prevent the behaviors I mentioned?

- Regarding offline protection; We already have that; it's called Home Base Protection. The problem is the game hasn't progressed to the point where reliable expansion and occupation of non-home-base territory can be maintained while offline. Your proposed grace period does not address things like bombardment from beyond your bases' defenses, the ability to jam AI turrets via stealth, the new shield-piercing bombs, collision damage (on servers that turn it on), theft via forced-reverse-docking, the ability to blockade a smaller faction and neutrals sneaking into your territory, bumping all your defense ships out of range, getting into your bases' defenses' blind spots and torching their way into your base. ...among other things; all while you're offline.

Micromanaging faction rules is not the answer. These are the things that need to be worked on the most.

 

[JinM]

I am still all in for my propposed score system. :D

Seriously why not give each kill a score from -20 to 10 and then you raise up or fall in levels? If you reach level 8 then you cant go higher.
Killing a level 1 player if you are level 4 gives you -20. Killing a level 6 player as level 5 gives you plus 5, and counter killing a level 5 player that just killed a level 1 player gives you plus 10. And so on.

And additionally the could be a !count player1 player2 command, where players that got killed, but the Starmade code wasn't able to see who killed whom, can put in the name of the missing player. This is to prevent level 8 players killing noobs, and shortly before they kill them they leave their ship, letting the turrets finish. Or any other hole in the system that prevents level 8 players from getting punished for killing noobs.

The only problem is the lacking access from Starmade, so server owners can write scripts, interpretting ship positions and player deaths. But this should be easy enough to implement. Whereas faction reworks and change offline protection and all that stuff wont happen within the next year.

Seriously guys you should start thinking about what small changes can improve Starmade within the next few months. All this long term ideas will not help you short term, and is all for dreams in +18 months.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I am still all in for my propposed score system. :D

Seriously why not give each kill a score from -20 to 10 and then you raise up or fall in levels? If you reach level 8 then you cant go higher.
Killing a level 1 player if you are level 4 gives you -20. Killing a level 6 player as level 5 gives you plus 5, and counter killing a level 5 player that just killed a level 1 player gives you plus 10. And so on.

And additionally the could be a !count player1 player2 command, where players that got killed, but the Starmade code wasn't able to see who killed whom, can put in the name of the missing player. This is to prevent level 8 players killing noobs, and shortly before they kill them they leave their ship, letting the turrets finish. Or any other hole in the system that prevents level 8 players from getting punished for killing noobs.

The only problem is the lacking access from Starmade, so server owners can write scripts, interpretting ship positions and player deaths. But this should be easy enough to implement. Whereas faction reworks and change offline protection and all that stuff wont happen within the next year.

Seriously guys you should start thinking about what small changes can improve Starmade within the next few months. All this long term ideas will not help you short term, and is all for dreams in +18 months.

It's not about player deaths. As I said above; there are a LOT of ways to make someone's life a living hell without killing them.

For example; Imagine being blockaded in your own station by a group ships armed with heavy turrets. Imagine one parked (set to idle) in every adjacent sector to your base so that you are constantly fired upon from every angle. You log out in frustration only to have them reappear when you come back on. You may be safe hiding in your home base but you can't build, you can't leave the area, and anything of yours that isn't docked will be destroyed.

This is something I've seen happen on occasion and should probably be addressed before anyone starts thinking of "levels" or "scoring".

 

[JinM]

It's not about player deaths. As I said above; there are a LOT of ways to make someone's life a living hell without killing them.

For example; Imagine being blockaded in your own station by a group ships armed with heavy turrets. Imagine one parked (set to idle) in every adjacent sector to your base so that you are constantly fired upon from every angle. You log out in frustration only to have them reappear when you come back on. You may be safe hiding in your home base but you can't build, you can't leave the area, and anything of yours that isn't docked will be destroyed.

This is something I've seen happen on occasion and should probably be addressed before anyone starts thinking of "levels" or "scoring".

You are not giving out any short term solutions. Maybe I have read your posts wrong but I don't see any suggestion here, not even long term ones. And speaking of behaviour. Just saying our suggestions are bad and something else needs to be adressed without giving a clear suggestion in what to do exactly...really your long post is kinda confusing. The OP at least had some precise suggestions on what to do. Action>Theory.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

You are not giving out any short term solutions. Maybe I have read your posts wrong but I don't see any suggestion here, not even long term ones. And speaking of behaviour. Just saying our suggestions are bad and something else needs to be adressed without giving a clear suggestion in what to do exactly...really your long post is kinda confusing. The OP at least had some precise suggestions on what to do. Action>Theory.

Do us both a favor and don't put words in my mouth. I never said the suggestions are "bad". I said they have gaping wide holes that allow for bad behavior and still will not give any purpose to combat. I also asked questions about how this plan will address the aforementioned bad behavior. I still haven't seen a real answer on this. "leave it to the server admins" is not a solution to the problem.

You want my suggestions? Ok, let's start with...

- Get rid of forced-reversed-docking to stop the ship theft exploit; require that public permission modules be installed on rail dockers in order for a ship to be picked up by another faction; otherwise the unit can only be picked up by your own faction.

- Fix the AI so they actually obey commands and will actually defend your territory rather than just wobble around drunkenly; waiting to get shot.

- Give stations and planetary bases a defensive advantage to offset their lack of mobility. This could be done via chambers.

- Cool it with the mining bonuses; They remove a lot of the challenge in multiplayer. A capital ship should be a challenge to obtain. You shouldn't be able to mass produce them after a few hours of game play.

- Fix AI weapon accuracy. This is self explanatory.

 

[Vyor]

- Regarding Admins; you're assuming that server admins will ban noob hunters and that said noob hunters won't weasel their way out of any accusations with excuses, loopholes, plausible denyability, etc. Logs may record player deaths but they do not record ship theft, destruction or vandalism. Logical inferences; no matter how sound can't always be proven. My point is, if someone wants to be malicious, this particular plan won't stop them and you can't count on admins to solve this.

I can think of no other solution. If you can I'd love to hear it.

- Regarding "non-PVP and solo factions"; you've offered these as an alternative to your plan when (as you've just admitted) no such options besides build servers exist. This is not only illogical but somewhat offputting; almost as if to say that if players don't fit squarely into either "build" or "PVP", no one cares about them. I've asked you to expand on your position since I doubt it was your intention to be offputting or to leave such a gaping hole in your idea.

No such servers exist right now because there is no distinction between the groups and player numbers aren't high enough to offer more player types.

- Regarding server policy; If you're going to say "let the server policy/admins take care of it." Why even bother to submit an idea in the first place? Either way, you won't actually have a real reason to fight. Likewise, neither model will prevent the kind of behavior I mentioned. Do you have any ideas to prevent the behaviors I mentioned?

There is no model possible to prevent those problems.

- Regarding offline protection; We already have that; it's called Home Base Protection. The problem is the game hasn't progressed to the point where reliable expansion and occupation of non-home-base territory can be maintained while offline. Your proposed grace period does not address things like bombardment from beyond your bases' defenses, the ability to jam AI turrets via stealth, the new shield-piercing bombs, collision damage (on servers that turn it on), theft via forced-reverse-docking, the ability to blockade a smaller faction and neutrals sneaking into your territory, bumping all your defense ships out of range, getting into your bases' defenses' blind spots and torching their way into your base. ...among other things; all while you're offline.

If you can't deal with those things then I guess you can get fucked? And I note that the offline protection extends to bases.

Micromanaging faction rules is not the answer.

These are the things that need to be worked on most.

This isn't micro managing.

Do us both a favor and don't put words in my mouth. I never said the suggestions are "bad". I said they have gaping wide holes that allow for bad behavior and still will not give any purpose to combat. I also asked questions about how this plan will address the aforementioned bad behavior. I still haven't seen a real answer on this. "leave it to the server admins" is not a solution to the problem.

The suggestion isn't meant to cover these things. You going in and asking why it doesn't cover them is like going into a cannon focused build thread and asking why there aren't missile boats.

- Give stations and planetary bases a defensive advantage to offset their lack of mobility. This could be done via chambers.

A balanced weapon system would allow that. Planets don't need armor or engines, they can have fucktons of shields. Stations don't need engines, they can have more shields than ships as a result.

 

[MacThule]

I can think of no other solution. If you can I'd love to hear it.

Personally, I think it's unnecessary. Noob-hunting is natural order shit; almost every predator on Earth, IRL, loves to eat cubs and young and stuff. Humans love veal and lamb. Eggs, even (like; 'we ain't even gonna let this one spawn in all the way before eating it! nomnomnom... '). It's a natural feeding order and attempting to contravene that is not going to present a lot of sustainable solutions, so you're right - direct admin intervention is probably the only thing that would.

Noobs survive by cleaving to a pack, herd or tribe. Or they die quickly and restart just as quickly (ever play slither.io?).

That kind of gameplay dynamic is abhorrent to a lot of people in a sandbox with so much emphasis on creativity and engineering, and I think that's why a lot of people object to potential rough tactics in PvP. It causes a problem though, when players who don't enjoy truly brutal and bloody FFA PvP sandbox time start weighing in on how to best facilitate that kind of play...

Some players want their PvP to be duels only between relative equals, with sportsmanship and fairness and all. That's cool, but I don't think that's what a PvP server is; I think that is something more appropriate to a PvE server where arranged contests and consensual duels can happen and violating the rules of good behavior result in a ban.

Personally, I think that in order to facilitate real, sandbox PvP, the gloves need to come off. No special protection for noobs or small factions, no HB invulnerability (because this way even a noob can slip a fast, stealth bomber up to the HB of a massively powerful enemy and put a gigantic hole in it with a kamikaze run). No one should be beyond the ability to injure through manipulating an invulnerability mechanic, because it works mostly to the advantage of those with experience who know how to game that system and those with low standards of honor who are willing to do so; invulnerable HBs are least valuable for those who are least experienced and most fair-playing. So no special protections except a very big, invulnerable spawn zone (like a whole system of invulnerability, with re-spawning roid rings where new players spawn) and once you leave the cradle you'd better either find a team to keep you safe, or play very, very carefully until you get enough resources together to build a base that will hurt people to assault, at which point they have to make a risk-reward assessment. Then you just set up a tension at the high-end to prevent larger, wealthier factions from sitting pretty - escalating maintenance or FP cost issues, for example. Now no one is safe, but this includes the assholes (who currently can troll all day and enjoy the safety of an invulnerable HB).

If a player on a PvP server wants to hunt noobs around the core all day, so be it. Just pushes the noobs to join factions and play more carefully. Personally, getting wasted a couple times while exploring when I first tried out Eve Online was what made me want to play more (and eventually I quit because it got boring; being able to play in almost complete safety once you learn how can be super boring), so it's not some kind of axiom that if noobs choose to log into a PvP server - instead of a PvE or RPG or Build server, which are totally options - and get smoked 3 times in a row whenever they try to leave the safe zone that they're going to give up in frustration. PvPers love the challenge, it will make them want to play.

I think the reason so many want to tame the PvP dynamic is because the PvP servers are always the busiest. Players want a busy, vibrant server, but fail to acknowledge that the reason it is vital and bustling is because it's challenging and deadly, instead they want to temper it and make it mellower, then don't understand why playbase dwindles and drifts over to newer, more raw PvP servers. It's because the thrill is the thing. Safety is without thrill. Arranged, rule-bound duels are without serious risk.

I think that it's a sandbox space shooter, and the no-holds-barred version of the game - FFA PvP - should be bloody and brutal and exceedingly hard to survive in. So that success actually feels rewarding.

There should be strong, robust tools for prohibiting or toning down the violence for PvE, RPG, and build-only servers, but the baseline should be open, not padded, helmeted and safety-harnessed. Nerf kills the fun.


So...


Not trying to wander off-topic, but I think that a rank & tier battlemode would be a great asset to the game. I don't think that it should replace sandbox PvP as default, but either way it wouldn't affect PvE or RPG servers and so issues of protecting fragile snowflakes are probably of minimal relevance.

Now I'm gonna go make myself some eggs...

 

[Captain Fortius]

Regarding the opening page:

This is all quite complicated and unnecessary. People will fight for fun, or out of spite, with or without any kind of system.

Factions need to fulfill one role; identify what belongs to whom, and who belongs together. That's all.
Make that work properly, at least before complicating things.

- Make sure there's no exploits to get inside, tamper with, or steal another player's ship or base.

Then, we can talk about more difficult issues.
What'd improve faction-wide gameplay?

- Friendly fire seettings, that either prevent the players and AI from discharging a weapon if allies are in the field of fire, or enable complete immunity to friendly damage (harmonized shield &weapons frequencies is a realistic enough explanation, if simply "videogame magic" bothers someone.)
- "Seeker" missiles (missile+missile) should not target allies.

-As mentioned before, competent, accurate AI that can handle:
- Decent pathfinding; doesn't have to be block by block, but should at least recognize another ship's bounding box is in the way, and attempt to avoid it somehow. Or ram it, if the AI was specifically instructed to do so.
- Flight in formation
- Head on attack runs, broadsiding, etc; basically anything to stop them from the current "face target and strafe in circles while maintaining max distance" method.
- Follow /defend a ship
- Patrol / defend an area
- Returns to original duty if no targets present themselves, or doesn't even separate beyond x distance ; resistance to being lured away too easily.
- Stations, motherships that can release marked docked vessels in combat. Selectable options; In waves, proportionally to the threat (no need to launch seven battlecruisers against one scout fighter ) or all at once for maximum overkill.
- Ships being able to return to their station docks or mothership if sufficiently damaged, or there are no more targets to fight.

-Station Defense:
- The only thing that deters an attack is it's cost; One needs to be able to build a station that will make the enemy lose resources; preferably more than you do by losing the station. They can still muster enough forces to destroy it; such is the fate of a stationary object, however mighty.
- Due to various unintended mechanics this is not possible in SM at the moment. Devs should;
- Fix exploits of free or very easy resource gains
- Introduce some sort of upkeep; spare parts to maintain the function of a ship, fuel to make it fly, ammunition to make it shoot; Otherwise there's no downside to building something larger or more numerous than the other guy's station.
- I would have preferred bubble shields, but if the new bombs can indeed bypass shields, the effect is largely the same (as soon as the AI is taught to properly use them); a defensive bomber group can prove to be lethally dangerous to a giant station busting space-rifle.
- It should be impossible to jump to or from sectors that contain planets or stations; perhaps even to the point that only sectors on any non-empty systems' edges would be viable entry / arrival coordinates for warp travel; Thus there's plenty of time to act on a warning of enemy forces arriving, and they can't escape as easily either, if the battle doesn't go in their favour; Risk and Reward!

On the social aspect;
Nothing can fully stop online malice, it can however be made at least a little more difficult;

- Recognition of harrasment and murder; Damaging, ramming, towing a ship, station, or any other entity flags you, and your current fleet as combatants, the duration of the flag is proportional to the damage done; a combatant can be attacked back and killed, but it flags the reciprocating side as combatants as well.
A faction declaring war would appear as flagged for combat to the other side; Mutual war would resort in mutual flagging.
Killing a ship, station, player or any other entity that wasn't flagged as a combatant should increase your personal "PK" (player kill , or any other name you like) score, as well as your fleet's and faction's.
Players and factions and any other entities with positive PK scores can be attacked and killed any time without flagging the attackers as combatants; Even if the PK'ers manage to fend off the attack, likely, they just have further increased their PK count.

(This is just a rough idea, lifted from Lineage 2's pvp system; I'm not pretending it can't be abused. Further refinements may be necessary)

Based on the severity of their PK rating, their location(marks last unstealthed location if the craft enters stealth), home base location, or even the location of all associated property could become visible on the galactic map, with progressively more information on their stats.
PK rating could even weaken or abolish Homebase Protection, spawn some sort of space police forces to go after you, and offer bounties to players who'd hunt you down.
The best part of this proposal, it works to enhance the gaming experience of both sides: Baby seals can feel safer, though not completely invulnerable; They're still encouraged for caution and growth. Agressors on the other hand can find greater thrill in their illicit activities, as they'll require time, resources, planning, preparation, and skills to be succesful. They can consider how far are they willing to go; Score a few kills and then work on losing some of that PK rating, or go all out and take on the entire server in an apocalyptic battle?

Building on this, new kinds of servers could be created; Dedicated PVE, or Limited PVP;

-It takes a simple true / false check and it can be made impossible to damage entities NOT flagged as combatants; A little more that lets you flag yourself at your discretion.

-It'd also be possible to have a large, non-combat central area (or multiple areas) in the galaxy where new or peaceful players could build up their strength, and fight bloody battles in the outer reaches of frontier space over resources or whatever.

That's the only "leaderboard" I'm really concerned with; Who's a menace, and who's not. Secondarily, as some sort of "fame" stat, it could be recorded how often certain people and factions were the agressors, and how often did they act in defense; Giving players a rough idea on whom to avoid and whom to trust.

....aaand once again I realize I wrote a post so long, few if any will bother to read through.

TLDR:

OP= Bad ideas. Does not enhance gameplay. Stop insisting.

Good ideas= Fix AI, make stations defendable, maintaining large ships and fleets costly, warping in / out harder, introduce penalties for unprovoked kills.

 

[Vyor]

OP= Bad ideas. Does not enhance gameplay. Stop insisting.

"You know, this faction rank system isn't focused on direct gameplay mechanics, I'm going to bitch about that and give no actual reasons the idea in the OP is bad."

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I can think of no other solution. If you can I'd love to hear it.

I'm kinda digging Captain Fortius' idea about combatant flagging. That will let everyone know who's easy to get along with and who's a D-bag.
On the other hand, MacThule has a good point about new players. These guys shouldn't be invincible but they do need a buffer to keep them from being incessantly harassed as they try to grow. Flagging may help with that.

No such servers exist right now because there is no distinction between the groups and player numbers aren't high enough to offer more player types.

While it's true that RP/PVP/PVE hybrid play styles are not adequately represented, I think you underestimate just how many of us there are. Unfortunately, some hybrid players settle for build servers or single player when they get tired of constant forced PVP. A lot of my friends stopped playing StarMade for this reason. Also, to my knowledge, we don't typically run our own servers; though I'm working on being an exception to that rule.

There is no model possible to prevent those problems.

Actually, the "flagging" idea, as well as the idea about limiting warp/jump travel might do the trick. If a player is given adequate warning of an attack (in their territory) they can react accordingly. A warning saying "XYZ hostile combatant has entered our territory" that stays on the screen for more than the split second the warning we get no does, coupled with the delay of said hostile needing more effort to get into an attack position will give you time to ambush, retreat, hide, or dock to home base.

If you can't deal with those things then I guess you can get fucked? And I note that the offline protection extends to bases.

No. That's an unreasonable response. Noob, veteran, RPer, PVPer or PVEer; no one should be expected to accept having their stuff stolen or destroyed while they are offline with almost no defense or security. I'd be perfectly fine with trying to control territory in PVP if AI worked correctly. Unfortunately, defense turrets have lousy accuracy and AI ships employ simple tactics that are easy to predict and counter. Their order system is also buggy so relying on them for system defense is a non-starter.

Making everything invincible offline isn't the answer. Neither is abolishing home base protection.

Don't put the cart before the horse. Just because you don't have a solution to this issue doesn't mean it should be ignored. Besides, without proper resolution of these issues, your plan won't work anyway.

This isn't micro managing.

You just wrote a wall of text to promote "tiers", "scoring" and "leveling", to govern who can fight who and when, as well as changes to the faction point system. While creative, this was an unnecessarily complicated and restrictive suggestion with minimal relevance to what's needed to fix faction warfare.

It was in fact, micromanaging.

The suggestion isn't meant to cover these things. You going in and asking why it doesn't cover them is like going into a cannon focused build thread and asking why there aren't missile boats.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked of JinM; Don't put words in my mouth.

I asked "How does your plan address these things?".

Your admittance that it does not, is acceptable but I would recommend that you take the time to think about the issues I mentioned.
Reason; we have neither a strong foundation for PVP, nor a real purpose for it. People will fight if they want to or if they are forced to; there is no further purpose for combat beyond this.

A balanced weapon system would allow that. Planets don't need armor or engines, they can have fucktons of shields. Stations don't need engines, they can have more shields than ships as a result.

Do you know what a station/planet does not have?

- Mobility; the ability to evade fire, retreat or evacuate
- The ability to call in reinforcements while you're away
- The ability to focus turret fire or prioritize enemy targets by threat level
- The ability to use death rays, shield piercing bombs or charge cannons
- The ability to make a logical judgement call on a neutral ship that's getting too close to be "just exploring"
- The ability to replace triggered/destroyed mines
- The ability to do ANYTHING but sit there like a beached whale while your enemy whittles down your shields, picks off your turrets one by one then torches his way into your base.

TL;DR; Your OP is neither "good" nor "bad"; It's simply something you asked for. I'm simply trying to get you to look at the big picture. Faction combat is broken and without purpose. Until AI is fixed, the weapons properly balanced and the various aforementioned exploits eliminated, it will remain broken and without purpose.

 

[Vyor]

Until AI is fixed, the weapons properly balanced and the various aforementioned exploits eliminated, it will remain broken and without purpose.

And it's almost like there are a dozen other threads devoted to that.

Forward thinking, it's a fucking thing.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

And it's almost like there are a dozen other threads devoted to that.

Forward thinking, it's a fucking thing.

And for good reason. After all, you yourself opened this thread with the words;

"Right, faction level PVP is absolutely pointless right now, not the least because of broken weapons and a pain in the ass power system..."

You were on to something there. It's a shame you didn't stick with it.

In any case, it looks like our exchange has run its course.

Feel free to hit me up if you change your mind and want to try being more constructive.

In the mean time, I have server assets to build. Peace.

 

[Vyor]

And for good reason. After all, you yourself opened this thread with the words;

You were on to something there. It's a shame you didn't stick with it.

In any case, it looks like our exchange has run its course.

Feel free to hit me up if you change your mind and want to try being more constructive.

In the mean time, I have server assets to build. Peace.

You want to know why I'm fucking annoyed with your utter and complete bullshit right now?

Because it's clear you don't give a flying fuck about the op or any discussion that's already happened.

No. That's an unreasonable response. Noob, veteran, RPer, PVPer or PVEer; no one should be expected to accept having their stuff stolen or destroyed while they are offline with almost no defense or security.

I already fucking gave solutions to that you absolute tosser, you said you didn't like it. For reasons. That you never fucking gave. And you know what? I can further prove you aren't addressing the OP right the fuck here:

TL;DR; Your OP is neither "good" nor "bad"; It's simply something you asked for.

Give actual fucking criticisms of the OP and not the game as a fucking whole.

 

[Sachys]

Some players, not all players. And that means it doesn't make the problem worse, merely gives additional ways to deal with it.

Some in this case = a lot.

I can only presume by your blindness to it, you are one of them, or have not gone on PVP servers before.

 

[JinM]

I didn't read the last replies.

Just sorry Whammy if I annoyed you. I hope I one day find a way to say my critique in a way that it doesnt bother you.

Anyway.

Just had the idea of seeking solutions from Dota2 and CS Go. CS has a trust factor and Dota has a behaviour score. Basically it puts all the bad players together. Maybe something along this way can be put into here too? Some trust factor for factions, not a killcount score, but a "we are the cool guys" score?

So if there happend any kill, booth participants are able to report the kill afterwards, or recommend it. You only have 3 reports each week. You can report for noobstomping, communication abuse, griefing.

If you have a low score you can't enter certain factions territory anymore. For example the faction "lolipolice" doesn't let people in with a high noobstomp score. You enter the territory and your location gets life-broadcasted for the next hour.

Or if you have a high communication abuse score you get muted in allchat.

I personally love my ideas. :D

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I didn't read the last replies.

Just sorry Whammy if I annoyed you. I hope I one day find a way to say my critique in a way that it doesnt bother you.

Anyway.

Just had the idea of seeking solutions from Dota2 and CS Go. CS has a trust factor and Dota has a behaviour score. Basically it puts all the bad players together. Maybe something along this way can be put into here too? Some trust factor for factions, not a killcount score, but a "we are the cool guys" score?

So if there happend any kill, booth participants are able to report the kill afterwards, or recommend it. You only have 3 reports each week. You can report for noobstomping, communication abuse, griefing.

If you have a low score you can't enter certain factions territory anymore. For example the faction "lolipolice" doesn't let people in with a high noobstomp score. You enter the territory and your location gets life-broadcasted for the next hour.

Or if you have a high communication abuse score you get muted in allchat.

I personally love my ideas. :D

Annoyed? Not at all. Given how these kinds of discussions can quickly spiral out of control, I simply asked that my thoughts not be misrepresented; by a misunderstanding or otherwise. I know you are not a belligerent person so no harm was done. Thanks for remaining civil.

Regarding the thread itself, there are a lot of thought provoking ideas in this thread. My only concern is that we may be prioritizing accessory features before the foundation of faction combat/warfare. I see that as a huge mistake; given how Schine's focus is already divided.

Now we have a choice to make.

Spoiler